User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 11:05:18 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Well, I've worked on 2D and 3D nozzles installations; the complicated part is what you can't see with a casual exam. The F-15 is a poor candidate due to the tail end weight bias. They carry ballast on the RADAR bulkhead now, and do not need more weight in the ass end. I've also worked on the aft fuselage of this airplane, and there is virtually no structural weight to be removed. And before anyone brings it up, the empennage is not coming off. 3D (or 2D) nozzles on a high performance airplane are not operated by the pilot as if they are secondary controls. Their operation is programmed into the flight control software and is transparent to the pilot; the pilot commands a maneuver, and the 'puter figures out where to position all the moving parts. Thousands of simulator hours are needed to sort through precisely how the interaction will be programmed. In the MATV demonstrator, the vectoring nozzle was directly controlled by the pilot by the addition of a dedicated joystick, at least for the initial trials. As I understand it, nozzle control was later moved to the FLCS after determining the basic useful parameters to be integrated into it. As I recall the nozzle control mechanism from drawings and photos I've seen of it, it was essentially a system of modified "turkey feathers" that are cam-operated, with two cam rings in the system that rotate as needed to determine vector and deflection of the nozzle. The nozzle constriction system for the afterburner was retained with little modification, relatively speaking. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 11:16:48 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
The cliff notes version? Jamming between aircraft nullified the radar missiles and allowed the aircraft to come into the merge. Been pointing that but for years here but no one wanted to listen… Contrary to percieved wisdom, F-22's and other 'stealthy' are not going to be standing off at BVR and 'swatting down' enemy fighters while remaining invisible. Everyone's going to jamming and using decoys. It's going to be a missile joust followed by a merge and close in knife fight. In a WVR fight you need a small visual signature, high rates of acceleration and very high rates of sustained and instantaneous turn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 11:42:40 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The cliff notes version? Jamming between aircraft nullified the radar missiles and allowed the aircraft to come into the merge. Been pointing that but for years here but no one wanted to listen… Contrary to percieved wisdom, F-22's and other 'stealthy' are not going to be standing off at BVR and 'swatting down' enemy fighters while remaining invisible. Everyone's going to jamming and using decoys. It's going to be a missile joust followed by a merge and close in knife fight. In a WVR fight you need a small visual signature, high rates of acceleration and very high rates of sustained and instantaneous turn. Modern missiles have HOJ capacity and will whack a jamming aircraft. The primary benefit of jamming is to prevent the other guy from getting a good look at accurate position and speed data as you close to range to fire your own weapon. As I understand it the nature of the F-22's (and any modern AESA for that matter) radar makes it hard to know you're being illuminated in the first place, which reduces the effectiveness of jamming. As for closing into a knife fight, the F-22 is capable of very high altitudes and very high speed without the use of afterburners, which would allow them to set up a pretty effective grinder attack while remaining out of range of retaliation and never have to close to knife range with opposing fighters. I also read a while back about a buddy launch system for the missiles where one plane can hang back broadcasting radar for all to see, and feed that targeting data to closer fighters who can remain undetected and launch without lighting up their own radars, so the planes doing the grinder would be able to immediately turn 180 to the target since they don't need to worry about supporting their missiles until pitbull. Please feel free to correct any mistakes, I'm only a Sim pilot myself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 12:02:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The cliff notes version? Jamming between aircraft nullified the radar missiles and allowed the aircraft to come into the merge. Been pointing that but for years here but no one wanted to listen… Contrary to percieved wisdom, F-22's and other 'stealthy' are not going to be standing off at BVR and 'swatting down' enemy fighters while remaining invisible. Everyone's going to jamming and using decoys. It's going to be a missile joust followed by a merge and close in knife fight. In a WVR fight you need a small visual signature, high rates of acceleration and very high rates of sustained and instantaneous turn. Modern missiles have HOJ capacity and will whack a jamming aircraft. The primary benefit of jamming is to prevent the other guy from getting a good look at accurate position and speed data as you close to range to fire your own weapon. As I understand it the nature of the F-22's (and any modern AESA for that matter) radar makes it hard to know you're being illuminated in the first place, which reduces the effectiveness of jamming. As for closing into a knife fight, the F-22 is capable of very high altitudes and very high speed without the use of afterburners, which would allow them to set up a pretty effective grinder attack while remaining out of range of retaliation and never have to close to knife range with opposing fighters. I also read a while back about a buddy launch system for the missiles where one plane can hang back broadcasting radar for all to see, and feed that targeting data to closer fighters who can remain undetected and launch without lighting up their own radars, so the planes doing the grinder would be able to immediately turn 180 to the target since they don't need to worry about supporting their missiles until pitbull. Please feel free to correct any mistakes, I'm only a Sim pilot myself. HOJ can be dealt with by seduction… AESA radars are no longer the new hotness, the technology is now mainstream and RWR's for them are coming onstream. If you can't take a BVR shot you have to come down and play, once it's WVR it's a VERY big aircraft. Buddy launch is common currency, smart money is off platform targeting using an AWACS… The Russians know this and have delivered a missile and tactics specifcally to kill the AWACS. Everyone tries to kill the other guys AWACS to level the playing field. A2A warfare is going down exactly route as submarine warfare has, to emit is to die and everyone just creeps around in close using passive sensors waiting for the other guy to make a mistake and reveal himself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 12:06:31 PM EDT
[#5]
The Russians also came up with that sneaky missile that can be guided by the AWACS and then uses IR for terminal guidance, you'll never know it was coming.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 1:30:09 PM EDT
[#6]
Not if we use passive IR detectors. If it uses an engine, it generate heat that can be detected.
We're way behind where we should be with regard to use of IR detectors. It's a very difficult task to hide your heat signature from IR detection equipment. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 1:56:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Not if we use passive IR detectors. If it uses an engine, it generate heat that can be detected. We're way behind where we should be with regard to use of IR detectors. It's a very difficult task to hide your heat signature from IR detection equipment. CJ Now that you mention it, isn't the F-35 supposed to have all-aspect sensors for this sort of thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 2:33:38 PM EDT
[#8]
There is much stupidity here from many of the usual suspects. I think I'll pass on this one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 2:40:35 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, I've worked on 2D and 3D nozzles installations; the complicated part is what you can't see with a casual exam. The F-15 is a poor candidate due to the tail end weight bias. They carry ballast on the RADAR bulkhead now, and do not need more weight in the ass end. I've also worked on the aft fuselage of this airplane, and there is virtually no structural weight to be removed. And before anyone brings it up, the empennage is not coming off. 3D (or 2D) nozzles on a high performance airplane are not operated by the pilot as if they are secondary controls. Their operation is programmed into the flight control software and is transparent to the pilot; the pilot commands a maneuver, and the 'puter figures out where to position all the moving parts. Thousands of simulator hours are needed to sort through precisely how the interaction will be programmed. In the MATV demonstrator, the vectoring nozzle was directly controlled by the pilot by the addition of a dedicated joystick, at least for the initial trials. As I understand it, nozzle control was later moved to the FLCS after determining the basic useful parameters to be integrated into it. As I recall the nozzle control mechanism from drawings and photos I've seen of it, it was essentially a system of modified "turkey feathers" that are cam-operated, with two cam rings in the system that rotate as needed to determine vector and deflection of the nozzle. The nozzle constriction system for the afterburner was retained with little modification, relatively speaking. CJ The turkey feathers on F100 engines were junk. Now that you mention that, I recall those engines, we flew an F-15 with turkey feathers reinstalled for vectoring for proof of concept flights. Their fatigue life was still shitty the second time around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 2:53:33 PM EDT
[#10]
The F-15Cs flying around Kadena are still turkey featherless. Them damned nozzles are LOUD, too. The pattern goes right over my barracks room, and I always know when the pilots reduce thrust to land.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 3:14:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
The F-15Cs flying around Kadena are still turkey featherless. Them damned nozzles are LOUD, too. The pattern goes right over my barracks room, and I always know when the pilots reduce thrust to land. We took the turkey feathers off the F-15A's and B's in 1976 and they never went back on. I was at Langley at the time, part of the 1st TFW. Somewhere around here I have a photo of one of the test stations I worked. I've never been able to find photos of this equipment on line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 3:31:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Not if we use passive IR detectors. If it uses an engine, it generate heat that can be detected. We're way behind where we should be with regard to use of IR detectors. It's a very difficult task to hide your heat signature from IR detection equipment. CJ You are, rather surprising really as you were ahead of the curve with the F-14. Couple of decades ago decisions were made. Euro's/Russians opted for ultra agile ACM planes with passive sensors, US opted for stealthy aircraft with clever electronics… FWIW, modern ELOP systems can track a 2deg temperature differential at 40-60nm's, friction skin heating will give you that, let alone your engines. The usual argument advanced against IR targeting is it can't give range. Well, if you have two fighters and a datalink it's just simple trigonometry to get a range and a firing solution for your BVR missiles, resulting in a totally passive engagement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 3:35:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not if we use passive IR detectors. If it uses an engine, it generate heat that can be detected. We're way behind where we should be with regard to use of IR detectors. It's a very difficult task to hide your heat signature from IR detection equipment. CJ You are, rather surprising really as you were ahead of the curve with the F-14. Couple of decades ago decisions were made. Euro's/Russians opted for ultra agile ACM planes with passive sensors, US opted for stealthy aircraft with clever electronics… FWIW, modern ELOP systems can track a 2deg temperature differential at 40-60nm's, friction skin heating will give you that, let alone your engines. The usual argument advanced against IR targeting is it can't give range. Well, if you have two fighters and a datalink it's just simple trigonometry to get a range and a firing solution for your BVR missiles, resulting in a totally passive engagement. Umm, if you have a datalink, then the engagement isn't passive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 3:42:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
He does go on to state that once the Indians truly learn how to "fight" their Flankers, then they should start winning more than they lose against standard F-15C and F-16C models.
That would be interesting to see. It sounds like the Indians are still working out their new toys. The Su-30 et al doesn't have to be better than the Raptor, as there really aren't enough Raptors to go around, and most likely never will be. They just have to be on par with or better than everything else, and deployed in large numbers. The Chinese have the numbers, or will do. The real question is how good is it against 4-4.5 gen fighters when competently flown and supported? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2009 5:04:24 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not if we use passive IR detectors. If it uses an engine, it generate heat that can be detected. We're way behind where we should be with regard to use of IR detectors. It's a very difficult task to hide your heat signature from IR detection equipment. CJ You are, rather surprising really as you were ahead of the curve with the F-14. Couple of decades ago decisions were made. Euro's/Russians opted for ultra agile ACM planes with passive sensors, US opted for stealthy aircraft with clever electronics… FWIW, modern ELOP systems can track a 2deg temperature differential at 40-60nm's, friction skin heating will give you that, let alone your engines. The usual argument advanced against IR targeting is it can't give range. Well, if you have two fighters and a datalink it's just simple trigonometry to get a range and a firing solution for your BVR missiles, resulting in a totally passive engagement. Umm, if you have a datalink, then the engagement isn't passive. And now you're getting somewhere close to my home field. I'm NOT an expert on low probability of intercept communications systems but there are commercially available digital spread spectrum systems that are fiendishly hard to even detect in operation without the proper equipment, knowing where in the spectrum to look, and having the right agility keys. With some such systems operating on a rolling code that rolls over frequently and in synchronization with GPS timing data, you have a system that is both highly secure and an outright bitch to detect with enough data points to get an accurate fix on a non-moving transmitter, to say nothing of a transmitter moving at high fractional mach speeds. Are such systems in use in fighters? Hell, I don't know. It probably takes a security clearance to know for sure. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2009 4:14:02 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not if we use passive IR detectors. If it uses an engine, it generate heat that can be detected. We're way behind where we should be with regard to use of IR detectors. It's a very difficult task to hide your heat signature from IR detection equipment. CJ You are, rather surprising really as you were ahead of the curve with the F-14. Couple of decades ago decisions were made. Euro's/Russians opted for ultra agile ACM planes with passive sensors, US opted for stealthy aircraft with clever electronics… FWIW, modern ELOP systems can track a 2deg temperature differential at 40-60nm's, friction skin heating will give you that, let alone your engines. The usual argument advanced against IR targeting is it can't give range. Well, if you have two fighters and a datalink it's just simple trigonometry to get a range and a firing solution for your BVR missiles, resulting in a totally passive engagement. Umm, if you have a datalink, then the engagement isn't passive. And now you're getting somewhere close to my home field. I'm NOT an expert on low probability of intercept communications systems but there are commercially available digital spread spectrum systems that are fiendishly hard to even detect in operation without the proper equipment, knowing where in the spectrum to look, and having the right agility keys. With some such systems operating on a rolling code that rolls over frequently and in synchronization with GPS timing data, you have a system that is both highly secure and an outright bitch to detect with enough data points to get an accurate fix on a non-moving transmitter, to say nothing of a transmitter moving at high fractional mach speeds. Are such systems in use in fighters? Hell, I don't know. It probably takes a security clearance to know for sure. CJ There is open source info stating that AESA radars can be used for LPI datalinks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2009 5:07:47 AM EDT
[#17]
I wouldn't get too excited. We should start seeing knock-off F-22 down in China town in about 5 years, right next to the fake Oakleys and "Morth Face" Jackets.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2009 6:58:15 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
There is open source info stating that AESA radars can be used for LPI datalinks. That's smart thinking! I'd wondered about whether or not radar systems could be used for communications. Of course it's possible, but has it been done? CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2009 7:23:25 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
The F-15Cs flying around Kadena are still turkey featherless. Them damned nozzles are LOUD, too. The pattern goes right over my barracks room, and I always know when the pilots reduce thrust to land. What you are hearing is the nozzles opening up when the pilots put the landing gear down, not them just pulling the throttles back. The Kadena jets have P&W F100-PW- 220 engines and the nozzle operation is much louder on them the the old -100 engines in ones I work on have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2009 7:32:58 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-15Cs flying around Kadena are still turkey featherless. Them damned nozzles are LOUD, too. The pattern goes right over my barracks room, and I always know when the pilots reduce thrust to land. We took the turkey feathers off the F-15A's and B's in 1976 and they never went back on. I was at Langley at the time, part of the 1st TFW. Somewhere around here I have a photo of one of the test stations I worked. I've never been able to find photos of this equipment on line. NASA 836 is the only 15 that I have ever seen with turkey feathers. And it also has the fairing that goes between the engines intalled on it too. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2009 7:39:19 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-15Cs flying around Kadena are still turkey featherless. Them damned nozzles are LOUD, too. The pattern goes right over my barracks room, and I always know when the pilots reduce thrust to land. What you are hearing is the nozzles opening up when the pilots put the landing gear down, not them just pulling the throttles back. The Kadena jets have P&W F100-PW- 220 engines and the nozzle operation is much louder on them the the old -100 engines in ones I work on have. The added noise if from pushing way more air through the pump. Lots more. That's one ugly boom above. I would like to know the flight limitations on that installation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2009 8:06:59 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is open source info stating that AESA radars can be used for LPI datalinks. That's smart thinking! I'd wondered about whether or not radar systems could be used for communications. Of course it's possible, but has it been done? CJ I'm pretty sure they can be used for jamming too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2009 8:52:06 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
As we know, the Cope India exercises from a few years ago seemed to reflect badly on our F-15 and F-16 fighters From articles I read at the time, the setups for those engagements were politically influenced; they were set up for the opfor to win. that is pretty common, I might still have an old aviation mag around here that talked about the Navy's exercises with the Chileans (IIRC) in the 80s, early 90s. The Chilleans cleaned our clocks, but here was the kicker... the Navy was not allowed to use AWACs, were limited in using their fighter radar, were not allowed to take BR shots etc. Tailor the exercise enough in one side's favor with the ROEs and you can get some fucked up outcomes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2009 9:06:13 AM EDT
[#24]
The briefing videos were pretty informative an offered some good insight and constructiuve critisism, but I think I lost about 40 IQ points reading the youtube comments from people taking the videos out of context turning it into some geopolitical statement.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2009 9:37:39 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
There is much stupidity here from many of the usual suspects. I think I'll pass on this one. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2009 9:49:38 AM EDT
[#26]
I'm about to learn something new.
The "turkey feathers"...I thought they were an integral part of the tailcone assembly? I guess that's not right if F-15s fly without them. Educate me on this. Please. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2009 1:26:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Yes, the F-15 can be successfully jammed by the latest and greatest Russian Flankers. But just because the Eagle can be jammed doesn't mean the Raptor is as susceptible. I recently read an article that discussed this aspect of modern combat and jamming was one of the key things mentioned to justify buying more Raptors. They are SIGNIFICANTLY tougher to jam than the standard F-15C.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2009 9:21:38 PM EDT
[#28]
As the F-22 drivers found out a few years ago at Nellis, Prowlers can shut them down quite reliably.
Nice base, Nellis, too bad I never stayed longer than 2 weeks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2009 9:50:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Interesting videos
Thanks for the links |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
